
Originally Posted by
Rorschach
Shall we recap those rhetorical tools to avoid for civilized debate? I'm guilty of them too...its almost unavoidable as the exact opposite is taught every day in our media. But it helps to recall, if only for that little inside voice to heed now and then.
1) Ad hominem - "To the man"
-- When arguing an issue, argue against the point stated, not the person stating it. There's a world of difference between saying, "You're an idiot" and "I question the wisdom of your position". Or "You're a fascist for saying that" versus "I find that position to be very offensive."
Debate is to resolve issues in a civil manner, not to score points before the mob like you're on Jerry Springer.
2) Law of the Occluded Middle
-- This is the one just illustrated above. In this bad argument, only the extremes are presented, and no middle ground is given credence. For instance, most talk radio frames an opponent as either a "gun-toting hick fascist" or a "tree-hugging bleeding heart liberal." No compromise is allowed by these arguments, so none is ever reached.
ALWAYS look for the middle ground instead, it is usually also the High Ground.
3) Straw Man
-- This is the most common by far, and we're all guilty. This is where an improbable scenario is constructed based on an argument, and because the scenario is absurd, the argument is made to seem absurd.
It also falls into the logical Non Sequitur (Does not follow) category. If the you are angry, and Hitler is angry, therefore you are Hitler.
A common debate example I see is, "Well, if we allow gays to marry, what's next? Someone having sex with a horse in public?" One does not follow from the other, no more than "Every Car that gets worse than 20 MPG is at fault for Hurricane Katrina."
The absurd effect may have a relation to the argument, but the association is made to seem all-encompassing when it is clearly not (to a rational being).
When the urge strikes for an extreme comparison, you can keep the direction of the comparison, just dial it back down to reasonable levels.
Again, you're here to discuss more or less rationally, not score points.